Sara Wilensky1, Sara Rosenbaum, Dan Hawkins, Heather Mizeur. 1. Department of Health Policy, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, 2021 K Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006, USA. wilensky@gwu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We analyzed responses to the 2000 Comprehensive Primary Medical Care programs for Medically Underserved Populations Survey and compared them with the 1995 survey results to identify trends. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to all primary care program offices. State primary care program associations reviewed primary care program offices' responses and completed surveys for offices that did not respond. RESULTS: We identified 30 qualified primary care programs in 24 states that had an overall funding level of $215 million. Most states allowed funds to be spent on expanding service areas, buying equipment, and hiring and training staff. CONCLUSIONS: Although state funding has increased overall, many states do not have comprehensive primary care programs, and an increasing number of states are experiencing budget deficits that may lead to reductions in existing programs.
OBJECTIVES: We analyzed responses to the 2000 Comprehensive Primary Medical Care programs for Medically Underserved Populations Survey and compared them with the 1995 survey results to identify trends. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to all primary care program offices. State primary care program associations reviewed primary care program offices' responses and completed surveys for offices that did not respond. RESULTS: We identified 30 qualified primary care programs in 24 states that had an overall funding level of $215 million. Most states allowed funds to be spent on expanding service areas, buying equipment, and hiring and training staff. CONCLUSIONS: Although state funding has increased overall, many states do not have comprehensive primary care programs, and an increasing number of states are experiencing budget deficits that may lead to reductions in existing programs.